Studio 25

27.10.13

On my long periods of procrastination I stumbled upon and article on the BBC website about... Sexual Jihad! Don't laugh, this is a serious matter! Many of us know how far fundamentalist are willing to stretch the boundaries of reason, and how they are willing to develop concepts based on their special book or their special relationship with divinity. We are already used to direct crimes like infanticide, slavery, misogyny, but the crimes of thought are more subtle, the crimes against reason are the ones that gives them an edge by validating what in other reference system would be truly considered evil.

Here is an article published online by BBC:

"Tunisian authorities say they have arrested a number of girls and women for providing sexual services to Islamist militants in Tunisia and Syria.The Interior Minister says the women, some as young as 17, are allegedly offering sex to battle-weary militants as part of a campaign to improve morale.For months there have been rumors about what the media has dubbed a "sexual jihad", but the scope of the practice and its possible links to the conflict in Syria have been shrouded in mystery."

Appalled by the the primary idea emanated by those two words, I tried to dig little bit into it. i started by trying to connect those two concepts: Sex and Jihad.

Sexual: (adj.)

relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.

Jihad: (noun)

a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.

any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.

I tried hard to connect them on my own, and I failed to put them together. What is it suppose to mean, have sex until your enemies drop dead?!... And that is where I needed help to understand, and for that I needed help from special source, God's very own word relayed telepathically (but through the mediation of an angel) to his special prophet, the Qur'an. And even-though I did not find explicit information about it, I did realize that there are "loopholes" in the system that allows someone with a special interest to manipulate it in that direction. But i did find that the Qur'an regulates "adult breastfeeding" (?!?!), sexual relations with concubines (slaves), marriage that can be limited to couple of hours (nice loophole, isn't it?). Those marriage regulations are the escape door(Mut'a marriage). Couple that with the verse “Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Yusuf Ali trans. 9:111), and you found the loophole for the sex. Now you only need to attach it to the jihad.

Many say, we misunderstand the word jihad, portraying it merely as a struggle, as a sacred duty of all muslims to spread the word of God. But those many fail to inform you that it never leaves out the physical struggle, the violent side of spreading the world. There is consensus among Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression, but do not exclude its use for expansion. And violence is carried out by men, and men need water, food, weapons, and sex to carry out its "sacred duty". Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Sexual Jihad, perfectly designed for your fighters, in perfect harmony with the teachings of Muhammad, with the will of God.

Yeap, you can actually build doctrinal validation for a stormy, crazy night of carnal love. Reports that this "incentives" have taken proportions may be exaggerated, but I am shaken more by its inception more than its very existence (prostitution existed long before islam or christianity), and successful attempts to validate it through what is supposed to be a moral code, the Qur'an and other islamic texts. And that begs the question: shouldn't they be revised as the grounding for morality?

"The same sort of lies and falsehoods are being uttered about Iran as were told about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction ten years ago, and in some cases by the same people."

Manipulation of some kind? Let us take a look at what they are saying.
I would expect a respectable news deliverer as "The Telegraph" to have a clearer picture of the recent past and of the present. The facts are that the Baathist regime in Baghdad had a history of hiding a nuclear program (maybe not at the time of the invasion, but they clearly had a history); attach that history to an almost continuous state of war, repeated obstructions to the IAEA inspection teams, violent suppression of any political opposition (or, does anybody doubt that?) and a belligerent rhetoric, and you have a loose cannon. Up until now it is not complicated; the complications arise in interpreting all these facts, in developing policies to minimize, eliminate or quarantine the potential "time-bomb". Yes, they chose muscle over diplomacy, they fabricated, manipulated or misinterpreted "evidence" and they pictured everything in the color of "do or die". Divergent reports on WMD programs or connections to terrorist organizations, some of which were really far-fetched, were sidelined or disregarded. There was a huge media offensive in support of a "muscular" course of action. The psychedelic atmosphere was fueled daily, and we were fed tons of assumptions painted as facts. Some of us were able to see behind the smoke screen, but the vast majority bought the story and when majority was won, the ball started to roll downhill. Connecting Iraq with Al-Qaeda was a huge blunder; the very idea that a repressive dictator would support an organization that undermined his very own authority is ridiculous.
In the midst of comparisons with those times and those decisions, some are simply not capable of seeing through a new smokescreen, but this time covering the other side. Maybe out of fear of repeating past mistakes, maybe out of an incapacity to see the differences between Baathist Iraq and Iran of now, there is tendency of generalizing instead of analyzing. A generalizing attitude that would induce a a tendency to either put Iran under the same assumption that led to military initiative in Iraq or, on the other extreme, start from a set of opposing assumptions.

"Nobody can say with certainty that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in secret. But it would be very hard for them to do so. This is because the country is a fully signed up member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has for the most part obediently respected its provisions, and continues to do so today.This means that Iran's enrichment facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), as are its other nuclear facilities. Over many years the IAEA has verified that no nuclear material has been diverted from these facilities for possible military purposes.Most experts consider that it would be impossible for Iran to produce weapons-grade uranium for a bomb without being spotted by IAEA inspectors.It is certainly true that the IAEA is currently in dispute with Iran over some of its nuclear activities. But it is not in breach of its NPT commitments, and here the contrast with India and Israel, both allies of the west, is so very striking. Their nuclear facilities are almost entirely closed to international inspections, and Israel is in open defiance of UN security council demands to make them available for inspection.The unfairness (grotesque from an Iranian point of view) is glaring.Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, is the object of ferocious economic sanctions and threats of military action. By contrast Israel (with perhaps 400 nuclear bombs and the capacity to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East) is the object of more than $3 billion a year of US military aid."

Indeed, nobody can say with certainty that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in secret. Well, they (Iranian government) can tell us all if they do, and even more, they can prove it. Instead, they chose to point fingers at Israel (not that I agree with their nuclear program). Apart from that, Israel is not a party to the NPT, neither are India or Pakistan, so they are not obliged to report to it. DPRK has left the treaty too. Iran didn't.

18.4.13

"Pyongyang, April 18 (KCNA) -- The Policy Department of the National Defence Commission (NDC) of the DPRK released the following statement Thursday: An acute situation that has persisted on the Korean Peninsula since the end of last year is now putting the peninsula on the verge of war. Much upset by the development, U.S. President Obama on April 11 reportedly stated in public of his intention to seek a negotiated and diplomatic settlement of the situation, saying that he does not want a war on the Korean Peninsula. The chief of Chongwadae of south Korea, who is accustomed to currying favor with her master, let the "minister of Unification" make public a "statement". She even loudly spoke of "the authorities' proposal for dialogue to tide over the situation", a U-turn from her previous attitude of stoking confrontation. She used to say that there can be neither dialogue nor dispatch of a special envoy at present. The rhetoric about dialogue raised by the master and the stooge almost at the same time is a political decision made by them out of their calculation that they can never bring the DPRK into submission with military threats and "sanctions".

17.4.13

"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns."

A Few Good Men, Director Rob Reiner 1992

China has revealed the structure of its military units, in what state-run media describe as a first.
The army has a total of 850,000 soldiers, while the navy and air force have a strength of 235,000 and 398,000, China said in its defence white paper.
The paper also criticised the US's expanded military presence in the Asia Pacific, saying it had exacerbated regional tensions.
China's defence budget rose by 11.2% in 2012, exceeding $100bn (£65bn).

The defence white paper, which state media describe as China's 8th since 1998, emphasised China's "unshakable national commitment... to take the road of peaceful development".

16.4.13

"Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball."

George Orwell, Animal farm

(Reuters) - Two bombs packed with ball bearings tore through crowds near the finish of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and triggering a massive hunt for those behind an attack the White House said would be treated as "an act of terror".

Officials said more than 100 people were wounded by the devices, which were packed with gunpowder and shrapnel to maximize injuries, according a senior law enforcement official briefed on the investigation who declined to be named.

15.4.13

"Because he makes me laugh. Because, fuck knows why, he adores me. Because he needs somebody to look after him and nobody else knows how. Because everything about us is wrong and I never ever want to be right. Because I wake up in the morning and see him sleeping next to me with his stupid dyed hair and his stupid painted nails and his stupid toy monkey and I remember I love him so much I don't know what to do, I love him I love him I LOVE HIM."

Richard Rider, Stockholm Syndrome

(Reuters) - Late socialist leader Hugo Chavez's chosen successor Nicolas Maduro won Venezuela's presidential election by a whisker but now faces opposition protests plus a host of economic and political challenges in the OPEC nation.The 50-year-old former bus driver, whom Chavez named as his preferred heir before dying from cancer, edged out opposition challenger Henrique Capriles with 50.7 percent of the votes in Sunday's election, according to election board returns. Capriles took 49.1 percent, a difference of just 235,000 ballots.Capriles, whose strong showing beat most forecasts, refused to recognize the result and said his team had a list of more than 3,000 irregularities ranging from gunshots to the illegal re-opening of polling centers.

10.4.13

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less." Howard Tayler

LONDON — On the eve of a meeting with the Syrian opposition, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that the Obama administration was weighing “stepped-up” efforts to support the rebel fighters, and that such proposals had been “front and center” in administration discussions over the past week.